Opinions and rants about human nature, behavioral and social trends, mores, ethics, values, and the effect of these human qualities on our future.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Comparing Arizona Security to Airport Security

Open border advocates, amnesty promoters, and liberals of all sorts, including our America-slamming President are expressing outrage at Arizona’s new immigration law. They are complaining that Arizona has decided to be effective in doing the job the Federal Government refuses to do: Enforcing immigration laws. They charge that the law promotes “racial profiling”. It doesn’t. They charge that a state immigration law is not the purview of the states but is the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government refuse to do its job. They charge that the a state law that allows asking for evidence of citizenship such as showing a green card is somehow akin to Nazism. Why are green cards issued if they are not required to be shown? As an aside, check out how Mexico treats illegal aliens.

Oh, and it just happens that 99% of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican, but we should not profile Mexicans.

Let’s now turn to our airport security screening. Not only do the screeners ask for several forms of identification from EVERYONE passing through the gates, but they subject EVERYONE to wanding, body searches, shoe searches, and carry-on baggage searches. They are screening EVERYONE. And somehow that is OK, despite the fact that 99% of all terrorists, and the only ones who have threatened the safety of aircraft in the last 20 years are Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 35. But we shouldn’t profile Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 35.

Holy crap!

I’m beginning to see some parallels here. In both Arizona and in airports, there is a dire concern about the safety of people in both places due to specifically identified groups of people. In both Arizona and in airports there is a clear profile identified of who is breaking the law and threatens lives. In Arizona, it is Mexicans who have entered the country illegally. In airports, it is Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 to 35. In neither instance is it acceptable to profile for the known characteristics of the people known to be a threat.

In Arizona, they merely want to identify individuals that do not have the legal right to be in their state. So logically, they may focus on people who look Mexican, subject to demonstrable “probable cause.” At airports, they are not even focusing on Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 to 35. They are screening ALL OF US. Is this the same insanity the open borders and amnesty advocates want in Arizona: Screen everyone, even though 80% are not Mexican while 99% of the illegals ARE Mexican?

We all carry identification that we have to show someone most every day. I am asked to show ID when I charge something or if pulled over for an alleged traffic offense, whether I believe I committed an offense or not. We don’t get offended and outraged when asked to show ID. Why should we be offended when a state is trying to defend itself from a huge influx of illegal aliens and criminals?

None of this makes sense. When something doesn’t make sense, there is usually a reason that we are not yet aware of. Why doesn’t this make sense? Does the federal government have a different agenda from most Americans? Most Americans want safe communities. Most Americans want to curb drug traffic and associated violence. Most Americans want our laws to be enforced. Most Americans don’t want to have to pay taxes for services (schools, welfare, hospitalization) for illegal aliens – tax evaders, law breakers and criminals. Most Americans don’t want illegal aliens taking jobs of legal citizens, especially when we have a 10% unemployment rate.

What does the Federal government want? What is their agenda? In both the Arizona illegal immigrant scenario and the airport security scenario, the Federal government seeks social justice as they define it. They define social justice not merely in terms of equal rights for all US citizens. In fact, and this sounds bazaar but I believe the track record indicates this is true, they define “social justice” as giving preferential treatment to non-citizens, law breakers, and US haters at the expense of the rights of US citizens. This sounds so bazaar that there has to be another motive behind it. I’ve heard some suggest the motive is power – future votes - votes from a burgeoning Mexican population and potentially burgeoning Muslim population in the US. Beyond this motive, there may be this Pollyannaesque ideal that the so-called “oppressed” and “downtrodden”, whether an illegal Mexican alien or a Sharia-inspired Muslim, should be given the welcome mat and special favors, similar to the civil rights-inspired “affirmative action” the federal government enforced since the 70’s.

The federal governments direction in all this is so out of control. Affirmative action has outlived the demographics of race and inequality. And now we see the federal government exercising a “stealth affirmative action” favoring illegal aliens and Muslims. This federal behavior is promoting an exceedingly hostile “middle America.” Things are likely to turn ugly.

To paraphrase Obama, who vowed to stand with the Muslim immigrants if the political winds shift in an ugly direction, “I will stand with them – the average middle class Americans should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Search This Blog

About Me

Moral relativism and political correctness abrogate our human responsibilities. Our current President and his administration is a consequence of America's lazy and uninformed electorate. Most have forgotten, ignored or rebelled against the Judeo-Christian foundation of our constitutional republic and our faith. It seems much of America is pre-occupied not with the things that improve and build, but things that pervert and destroy. Failure to speak the truth for fear of offending will kill us.